One could argue that's the whole point of formal sitting practice - to facilitate mindfulness and insight off the cushion. From a practical perspective I've found that maintaining mindfulness without a sitting practice is much more difficult.

porpoise wrote:One could argue that's the whole point of formal sitting practice - to facilitate mindfulness and insight off the cushion. From a practical perspective I've found that maintaining mindfulness without a sitting practice is much more difficult.

Obviously experience can vary for different people, but speaking generally, I think you are quite correct.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

but a ritualized practice may actually help one give up attachment to rules and rituals and the belief in self, don't you think?

By simple logic, if ones thinks that ritualized practice is the way, one will not give up attachment to rules and rituals.One gives up only when one realizes than it is the wrong way.

The interesting question here is what constitutes a ritual? The reality is, of course, that whatever practice we start doing one is very likely to have a variety of ideas and feelings about it that are not reflective of a mature practice in line with the Dhamma. The maturity comes with experience and insight. Doing a disciplined practice, could easily be called a ritual, but if the practice is done well, in accordance to principles of the Dhamma, then the various subtle attachment will expose themselves in light of the ongoing insights one will have as a result of the meditation and Eightfold Path practice. Why would we think it would be otherwise? Any practice one does, be it a formal, disciplined meditation practice, a Sujin style practice, or whatever is always going to be susceptible to being side tracked or failing because one might become overly rigid and locked into a particular point of view, which is why working with good teachers is of great benefit.

Similarly, if one believes that there is a self who can condition dhammas as wished, which is the underlying idea of "formal practice" how can there be detachment from an idea of self?

One does not have to "believe" in a self to take seriously the Buddha's teachings that how we choose, what choose to do and to not do does, indeed, condition the tragectory of our life, of our practice. One cannot force wisdom, but one can certainly cultivate the conditions that give rise to wisdom.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:- samatha bhavana is the cultivation of kusala which is not dana, not sila. The ground for this bhavana is seeing the danger of attachment to sensuous objects. It is precisely panna which perform this function, panna of the degree of seeing the danger of attachment to sensuos objects, not the panna which sees realities of they are. This kind of panna knows the conditions for calmness to arise. It is then by virtue of this kind of panna that calmness which is kusala is developed, not because of wanting to have calm, or because of trying to sit hours after hours with ignorance.

The practical, experiential reality is, of course, you really won't know or have an idea of what attachments and other such problems there are in your mind/body process that will obstruct your cultivation of calmness until you actually do the practice to cultivate calmness and then actually bump into these problems and then have to deal with them in the light of awareness. If you do not do the practice, these issues may never clearly arise, and you'll never know. And much the same can be said for vipassana.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:. . . if one believes that there is a self who can condition dhammas as wished, which is the underlying idea of "formal practice" how can there be detachment from an idea of self?

Hi Dhamma Follower,

Who in this thread said that there was a self that conditions the dhammas as it wished?

If someone thought that a self was necessarily behind the idea of a formal practice, then which one of these (the person, or the practice) do you think has a view of the self in the first place?

If a person said that "he" was going to do a practice, conventionally speaking... and someone else, as an attempt to view this in the "ultimate sense," accused that person of having a self view... whose fault do you think this would be?

I think that if there was a real understanding, then it would be already seen that there is no permanent, unchanging self that has to be inherent within this phrase, "he was going to do something," in the first place...

This is why the conventional speech can still be seen as a truth, according to the Buddha.

Coyote wrote:I think there is a lot to be said for not doing this kind of meditation at all until one is at least established in Sila.

There is no reason to think that breath meditation and sīla cannot work well together.

I certainly agree that breath meditation is harder than other meditation

Harder than what other meditations?

What I meant was that it might be better for some to put off doing insight/concentration meditation until a firm commitment to sila has been established, not that you can't learn anything from it. This is what is traditionally recommended by some, isn't it? Establish Sila then work on concentration, and insight will come. What I meant by the other one was that if the goal is insight or firm concentration, as it usually is with anapanasati, then this is something very hard to accomplish, and it might be easier to become practised in metta or some other meditation subject before one takes on this goal. Obviously other people have different experiences but it is just something I have learned from trying to take things on too fast.

"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared." Iti 26

Coyote wrote:I think there is a lot to be said for not doing this kind of meditation at all until one is at least established in Sila.

There is no reason to think that breath meditation and sīla cannot work well together.

I certainly agree that breath meditation is harder than other meditation

Harder than what other meditations?

What I meant was that it might be better for some to put off doing insight/concentration meditation until a firm commitment to sila has been established, not that you can't learn anything from it. This is what is traditionally recommended by some, isn't it? Establish Sila then work on concentration, and insight will come. What I meant by the other one was that if the goal is insight or firm concentration, as it usually is with anapanasati, then this is something very hard to accomplish, and it might be easier to become practised in metta or some other meditation subject before one takes on this goal. Obviously other people have different experiences but it is just something I have learned from trying to take things on too fast.

Thank you for your clarification. I think we might differ a bit in a couple of things; however, it would seem that what you are saying with this clarification is still vastly different from what it seems that robertk is suggesting.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

Coyote wrote:What I meant was that it might be better for some to put off doing insight/concentration meditation until a firm commitment to sila has been established, not that you can't learn anything from it. This is what is traditionally recommended by some, isn't it? Establish Sila then work on concentration, and insight will come. What I meant by the other one was that if the goal is insight or firm concentration, as it usually is with anapanasati, then this is something very hard to accomplish, and it might be easier to become practised in metta or some other meditation subject before one takes on this goal. Obviously other people have different experiences but it is just something I have learned from trying to take things on too fast.

Thank you for your clarification. I think we might differ a bit in a couple of thing; however, it would seem that what you are saying with this clarification is still vastly different from what it seems that robertk is suggesting.

I, for one, am still not clear what robertk is suggesting.

It's not controversial to suggest that attachment to ritual is a hindrance to be overcome or let gone of in due course. But if one suggests that formalised practice is harmful and should be foregone in favour of some other non-formal practice in all cases, then this view really does need defending.

It reminds me of Krishnamurti who argued that the mind is already so rigid and conditioned and full of conflicts and dualities, that to impose another structure on it like that of formalised spiritual practice is like to clean off dirt with mud. I think he overestimated people's capacity and resolve and that's why his legacy is dwindling fast.

Last edited by Dan74 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Coyote wrote:What I meant was that it might be better for some to put off doing insight/concentration meditation until a firm commitment to sila has been established, not that you can't learn anything from it. This is what is traditionally recommended by some, isn't it? Establish Sila then work on concentration, and insight will come.

There is one sutta directly against your claim:

pañc imāni, bhikkhave, sikkhā·dubbalyāni. katamāni pañca? pāṇ·ātipāto, adinn·ādānaṃ, kāmesu·micchā·cāro, musā·vādo, surā·meraya·majja·pamāda·ṭṭhānaṃ. imāni kho, bhikkhave, pañca sikkhā·dubbalyāni.These five, bhikkhus, are weaknesses of the training. Which five? The destruction of life, taking what is not given, misbehavior in sensuality, false speech, and liquors, spirits and intoxicants that cause carelessness. These five, bhikkhus, are weaknesses of the training.

Kayanupassana includes anapanassati and dhammanupassana includes vipassana (arising and passing away of the aggregates for example)

Coyote wrote:What I meant by the other one was that if the goal is insight or firm concentration, as it usually is with anapanasati, then this is something very hard to accomplish, and it might be easier to become practised in metta or some other meditation subject before one takes on this goal. Obviously other people have different experiences but it is just something I have learned from trying to take things on too fast.

Well, the cause for non-success must be appropriately investigated. The fault doesn't fall on the technique. It falls on the way we take it.

See:

"Suppose that there is a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook who has presented a king or a king's minister with various kinds of curry: mainly sour, mainly bitter, mainly peppery, mainly sweet, alkaline or non-alkaline, salty or non-salty. He does not take note of his master, thinking, 'Today my master likes this curry, or he reaches out for that curry, or he takes a lot of this curry, or he praises that curry... Today my master likes non-salty curry, or he reaches out for non-salty curry, or he takes a lot of non-salty curry, or he praises non-salty curry.' As a result, he is not rewarded with clothing or wages or gifts. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful cook does not pick up on the theme of his own master.

"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk remains focused on the body in & of itself... the mind in & of itself... As he remains thus focused on mental qualities in & of themselves, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does not take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a pleasant abiding here & now, nor with mindfulness & alertness. Why is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not take note of his own mind.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to call you a fool, as the use of this word here was not my choice.

Sekha wrote:Well, the cause for non-success must be appropriately investigated. The fault doesn't fall on the technique. It falls on the way we take it.

Very interesting sutta. I see the key word there is the "nimitta" of his master, or of his mind. Looking at the Pali dictionary, I wonder whether that could be translated as "he does not notice the condition of his mind" (with regard to the development of concentration and abandoning of defilements)

Dan74 wrote:It's not controversial to suggest that attachment to ritual is a hindrance to be overcome or let gone of in due course. But if one suggests that formalised practice is harmful and should be foregone in favour of some other non-formal practice in all cases, then this view really does need defending.

I'm also unsure of where "formal" ends and "non-formal" begins. It seems that there is always some kind of methodology involved.

porpoise wrote:I'm also unsure of where "formal" ends and "non-formal" begins.

Indeed every practice is "formal" in some way. I would rather speak of stereotyped practice, the definition of which would be that there is a dichotomy between what happens at the physical or vocal levels, or even at the surface of the mind, and what really happens at the deeper levels of the mind. This comes from the fact that people tend to assimilate the kammically fruitful action with the physical or vocal action, disregarding the fact that it is only mental volition that defines the quality of the action.

Mr Man wrote:Our practice is our life. There is no on and off. Sitting meditation is or can be just another part of our life (like eating a sandwich?).

robertk wrote:It is not that sitting and watching the breath or watching bodily sensations is going to help or hinder the path, anymore than me chosing the Belly Sandwich Shop in preference to Subway.

One eats a sandwich for sustenance. If we take the Buddha's teachings and admonitions concerning the need for formal sitting practice seriously, it is of a bit more significance than choosing between one shop or another, and it is a bit more than just eating a sandwich.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

DAN:It reminds me of Krishnamurti who argued that the mind is already so rigid and conditioned and full of conflicts and dualities, that to impose another structure on it like that of formalised spiritual practice is like to clean off dirt with mud. I think he overestimated people's capacity and resolve and that's why his legacy is dwindling fast.

Hi danI think mr. K thought that all that was needed was to let go of attachment to ritual and special practice.But as this thread shows one also needs the deep explanations of the khandhas , the dhatus, the ayatanas and the causes and conditions for them, that the Buddha gave. These teachings of the Buddha are then confirmed in every moment that satisampajanna arises; so that if one is eating a sandwich for example, there is direct understanding of taste or hardness or sound or color or seeing or desire or aversion etc.

In other words he had the right idea in that he saw the danger in silabataparamasa but didnt have the conditions to go further.

DAN:It reminds me of Krishnamurti who argued that the mind is already so rigid and conditioned and full of conflicts and dualities, that to impose another structure on it like that of formalised spiritual practice is like to clean off dirt with mud. I think he overestimated people's capacity and resolve and that's why his legacy is dwindling fast.

Hi danI think mr. K thought that all that was needed was to let go of attachment to ritual and special practice.But as this thread shows one also needs the deep explanations of the khandhas , the dhatus, the ayatanas and the causes and conditions for them, that the Buddha gave. These teachings of the Buddha are then confirmed in every moment that satisampajanna arises; so that if one is eating a sandwich for example, there is direct understanding of taste or hardness or sound or color or seeing or desire or aversion etc.

In other words he had the right idea in that he saw the danger in silabataparamasa but didnt have the conditions to go further.

Hi Robert and thank you for replying.

Krishnamurti was big on inquiry, so it's not quite fair to say that he "thought that all that was needed was to let go of attachment to ritual and special practice" but we probably shouldn't get sidetracked.

In various teachings the Buddha addressed the people of different personalities, potentialities and capacities and it is not clear to me that "the deep explanations of the khandhas, the dhatus, the ayatanas and the causes and conditions for them" is something that needs to be learned by everyone. Some may discover them for themselves in due course.

With my students too, some need more explanation, others need less. Some need more here and others more there. But above all, it is important to learn to inquire and discover. Following another person's roadmap, one has to be careful to look under one's feet and not to stumble. Even more importantly, one has to look around carefully to see where one is, otherwise the map will lead to quite a different place than intended. Perhaps even more fundamentally, it can be argued that a map can only lead so far, as mr k said "truth is a pathless land", which I understand to mean that we all have to find our own way in it, with the words of our teacher - a lamp that lights the way.

So, I am still at a loss to see how without an intense meditation practice one can investigate the sense bases and the khandas and the causes and conditions for them. As far as I can make out, no explanation can suffice in the end and one needs to actually see the functioning, to become aware. A coarse untrained mind is not going to be able to do that. All such a mind will see are the coarse arising and passing away, but the subtle will remain obscure.

So how can we dispense with a training of the mind to perceive and let go of the defilements without meditation? Maybe one blessed by kamma of aeons of cultivation and a subtle and agile mentality can do that, but most of us can't.

Most of us also cannot summon up enough resolve to truly look into it and relinquish but through practice develop an affinity with the wholesome while seeing the shortcoming and unsatisfactoriness of the unwholesome and the vital importance of practice. The coarse pleasures are hard to give up without a mind trained in insight that is able to see them for what they truly are rather than simply try to believe the teachings. Belief is always built on a shaky ground and can crumble given enough pressure, but one who knows is secure. Without a deep training that brings about a clarity and depth of seeing, how can we hope to see past our attachments?

Dan74 wrote:Most of us also cannot summon up enough resolve to truly look into it and relinquish but through practice develop an affinity with the wholesome while seeing the shortcoming and unsatisfactoriness of the unwholesome and the vital importance of practice. The coarse pleasures are hard to give up without a mind trained in insight that is able to see them for what they truly are rather than simply try to believe the teachings. Belief is always built on a shaky ground and can crumble given enough pressure, but one who knows is secure. Without a deep training that brings about a clarity and depth of seeing, how can we hope to see past our attachments?

And that pretty much describes why the Buddha carefully outlined and implored us to take a path of disciplined meditative practice as part of the Eightfold Path.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

dhamma follower wrote:. . . if one believes that there is a self who can condition dhammas as wished, which is the underlying idea of "formal practice" how can there be detachment from an idea of self?

Hi Dhamma Follower,

Who in this thread said that there was a self that conditions the dhammas as it wished?

If someone thought that a self was necessarily behind the idea of a formal practice, then which one of these (the person, or the practice) do you think has a view of the self in the first place?

Dear BBB,

The idea of a self goes hand in hand with the idea that dhammas do not depend only on conditions to arise.

If one thinks that it is the formal practice- of which the underlying emphasis is the intention to do something in particular, as opposed to just going about our daily chores naturally- that is needed for the arising of understanding, one is actually assuming (may be unknowingly) a self who can intend to make sati to arise in certain circumstances.

I think this common belief (that I used to have too) comes from lacking understanding of what sati is and the conditions for its arising. Hence, very common knowing of what's going on is mistaken for sati, and intention is mistaken to be condition for sati to arise.

Let's see what the texts say:

Mindfulness, sati, is one of the nineteen sobhana cetasikas which have to arise with each sobhana citta. The Atthasdlini (I, Part IV, Chapter 1, 121) states that the characteristic of mindfulness is "not floating away'. Mindfulness "does not allow the floating away of moral states", such as the four applications of mindfulness and the other factors leading to enlightenment. Another characteristic of mindfulness the Atthasalini mentions is "acquiring" or "taking up" (1 In Pali: upaganhana.), that is, acquirement of what is useful and beneficial. Mindfulness, when it arises, "searches well the courses of states, advantageous and disadvantageous: -'these states are advantageous, those disadvantageous, these states are serviceable, those not serviceable'- and then removes the disadvantageous and takes up the advantageous."

The Atthasalini then gives another definition of mindfulness: ... Mindfulness has "not floating away" as its characteristic, unforgetfulness as its function, guarding, or the state of facing the object, as its manifestation, firm remembrance (sanna) or application in mindfulness as regards the body, etc., as proximate cause. It should be regarded as a door-past from being firmly established in the object, and as a door-keeper from guarding the door of the senses.…..As we have seen, the Atthasalini states that the proximate cause of mindfulness is firm remembrance (sanna) or the four applications of mindfulness (satipatthana). There can be mindfulness of the nama or rupa which appears because of firm remembrance of all we learnt from the teachings about nama and rupa. Listening is mentioned in the scriptures as a most important condition for the attainment of enlightenment, because when we listen time and again, there can be firm remenbrance of the Dhamma. Mindfulness is different from remembrance, sanna. Sanna accompanies every citta; it recognizes the object and "marks" it, so that it can be recognized again. Mindfulness, sati, is not forgethe of what is wholesome. It arises with sobhana cittas. But when there is sati which is non-forgetfuI of dana, sila, of the object of calm or, in the case of vipassana, of the nama and rupa appearing at the present moment, there is also kusala sanna which remembers the object in the fight way, in the wholesome way.The other proximate cause of mindfulness is the four applications of mindfulness or satipatthana (1 satipatthana means mindfulness of vipassana or the object of mindfulness of vipassana.) . All realities can be object of mindfulness in the development of insight and are thus included in the four applications of mindfulness which are rupa, feeling, citta and dhamma. For those who have accumulations to develop calm to the degree of jhana and to develop insight as well, also jhanacitta can be object of mindfulness in vipassana, in order to see it as non-self. Right understanding of realities is developed through mindfulness of any nama or rupa which appears now, be it akusala citta, maha-kusala citta, jhanacitta or any other reality. One should not try to direct mindfulness to a particular object; there is no self who can have power over any reality or who can direct sad. There is not any reality which is excluded from the four applications of mindfulness.

The interesting question here is what constitutes a ritual? The reality is, of course, that whatever practice we start doing one is very likely to have a variety of ideas and feelings about it that are not reflective of a mature practice in line with the Dhamma. The maturity comes with experience and insight. Doing a disciplined practice, could easily be called a ritual, but if the practice is done well, in accordance to principles of the Dhamma, then the various subtle attachment will expose themselves in light of the ongoing insights one will have as a result of the meditation and Eightfold Path practice. Why would we think it would be otherwise? Any practice one does, be it a formal, disciplined meditation practice, a Sujin style practice, or whatever is always going to be susceptible to being side tracked or failing because one might become overly rigid and locked into a particular point of view, which is why working with good teachers is of great benefit.

Actually, when one talks about a situation, one actually refers to an uncountable numbers of moments arising and passing away. In such a given situation (ex: a retreat), there are certainly many moments of akusala alternating with moments of kusala, many moments of ignorance alternating with some moments of understanding. Therefore, it is very likely one is unclear about what conditions what. But the Buddha was very clear about what conditions panna, and they are: listening to the right dhamma and wise considering of what is heard (yoniso manasikara). That can condition, in due course, the arising of direct understanding of realities as they are (dhammanudhamma patipada). Apart from those moments, it is not the cultivation of vipassana pana at all. And no special environment is needed for these to occur.

One cannot force wisdom, but one can certainly cultivate the conditions that give rise to wisdom.

The conditions that give rise to wisdom are mentioned above. I don't see anything to do with a formal practice.